#1
|
|||
|
|||
How safe a haven?
Space station chief wary of haven plan
Fri Feb 4, 2005 5:16 AM GMT By Irene Klotz [EXCERPTS] MELBOURNE, Florida (Reuters) - The International Space Station is not ready to serve as a safe haven for shuttle crew members stranded by ship damage, the Russian commander of the next station crew has said. Cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev said NASA's emergency plan for the crew of a damaged space shuttle to take refuge on the orbiting station until a rescue ship could be sent raised safety issues and he had pressed managers on the issue. "We need to prepare a backup plan for this backup scenario," said Krikalev, 46, a veteran of three long-duration space flights and two shuttle missions. "It's going to be difficult. The station cannot stay in this configuration for a long time," he said during a news conference at Houston's Johnson Space Centre. Managers are targeting the first post-Columbia shuttle mission for launch in mid-May. Although the primary purpose of the Discovery flight is to test in-flight heat shield repair techniques, the crew will deliver critical equipment to the space station. Some of the gear is to outfit the station to serve as a safe haven if another shuttle is damaged. Krikalev's chief concerns centre around adequate air, water and food supplies, as well as how nine people would cope physically and mentally in a small space for a prolonged time. Access to the station's exercise equipment, which is critical during long-duration space flight, would be limited. "I've got assurance from station managers that everything necessary needs to be done to make sure that this scenario would be avoided," Krikalev said. Although NASA will have a second shuttle poised for launch in case of a problem with Discovery, the agency would have to go ahead with the mission well before an accident investigation or hardware modifications could be made. "If the situation which requires people to stay (aboard the station) happened, it will be a very difficult decision to send another shuttle to try to rescue them," Krikalev said. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A bit mo
------------------------------- Feb. 3, 2005, 9:33PM Cosmonaut questions space shuttle strategy NASA says it will keep crew size at seven for its upcoming mission By MARK CARREAU Houston Chronicle Months before Discovery is scheduled to lift off, Sergei Krikalev, who becomes the station skipper in late April, has asked NASA to consider cutting Discovery's crew from seven to four. And if Columbia-like shuttle damage forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle. "As soon as I knew the shuttle would fly during my (command), it became my duty to work up all of these options to be sure I would not be faced with two bad scenarios, and that is why I talked about this," Krikalev said Thursday during a news conference at Johnson Space Center discussing the six-month space station mission he'll share with American John Phillips. "It's my concern, and I feel it's my duty." The odds of a serious problem are low, admits Krikalev, who has spent 17 months in space. But he noted the outpost has struggled to sustain even its two-man U.S. and Russian crews since the loss of Columbia two years ago grounded NASA's shuttle fleet. NASA intends to stick with its plans for a seven-member crew on Discovery's mission, NASA spokesman James Hartsfield said Thursday. "I believe the NASA management knows exactly what the risks are," Phillips said. With a shuttle crew of four, Krikalev says Russians could rescue all six space station crew members by launching a three-man Soyuz rescue capsule to join another Soyuz already parked at the outpost. With a larger Discovery crew, NASA would have to launch a backup shuttle or ask nine people to share the station's cramped quarters for months, he said. -------------------------------------------------------- Question: Why not use the one presumably available Soyuz (besides the docked life-boat one) to reduce a crew of nine to six, thus buying some time? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Allen Thomson" wrote:
And if Columbia-like shuttle damage forces an emergency rescue, he thinks two Soyuz capsules could do it quicker than one U.S. backup shuttle. And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from? D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote: And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from? An excellent question that goes to the heart of the matter. I'd be willing to spot them one extra Soyuz available on fairly short notice, which would get three people down while leaving the emergency life-boat on ISS. Russian boosters and hardware in general are notoriously rugged and given to rough-and-ready response. But that assumes that they're available to respond rough-and-readily. However, how soon after an initial emergency Souyz launch could Russia get another Soyuz to ISS to return an additional three people and leave the station with three on board? Krikalev's concerns are worth thinking about, but I'm not sure where the answer will come out. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Derek Lyons wrote:
And where precisely are these two 'extra' Soyuz going to come from? Krikalev was acting as a saleman: "For a true safe haven that works, buy 2 soyuz now and have them always ready to be launched if needed to rescue shuttle crews". While the Soyuz solution does deal with saving human lifes, it does not deal with any cargo uplift for spare parts to save the injured shuttle. And that is where the backup shuttle really comes in handy. In the short term, will they be doing anything to make PMA3 usable ? Are there any possible PMA3 locations that would allow the SSRMS to move the injured shuttle from PMA2 to PMA3 ? In terms of sufficient storage and general space, I still think that NASA should have spend those 2 years strenghtening one MPLM into a permanent fixture to the station. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
John Doe wrote:
Krikalev was acting as a saleman: "For a true safe haven that works, buy 2 soyuz now and have them always ready to be launched if needed to rescue shuttle crews". Who would buy them? Not the US, which is constrained (at least in ordinary circumstances) by the Iran Non-Proliferation Act. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Allen Thomson" wrote in
ups.com: Question: Why not use the one presumably available Soyuz (besides the docked life-boat one) to reduce a crew of nine to six, thus buying some time? Actually, there is some consideration of using the docked lifeboat one. There's a safety tradeoff here, though: you can only bring home crewmembers that already have Soyuz seatliners, which limits you to bringing home the ISS crew rather than three members of the shuttle crew. So you get longer consumables lifetime, at the price of removing the crewmembers best trained to deal with an ISS contingency after the Soyuz leaves. "Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history of Soyuz in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship to Baikonur until about three months after the previous one was launched. So you don't have 100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have the seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers fitted for them. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jorge R. Frank wrote: "Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history of Soyuz in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship to Baikonur until about three months after the previous one was launched. So you don't have 100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. Is Soyuz assembly now being done on a single-shift per day basis? If so, some acceleration should be possible. And you still have the seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers fitted for them. Is that a big deal? Or could inflatable or moldable few-sizes- fit-all seatliners be developed for emergency use? Perhaps not as good as custom-fitted ones, but better than the alternative... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ... "Presumably available" is a bit strong; looking over the history of Soyuz in the ISS era, the next Soyuz typically doesn't ship to Baikonur until about three months after the previous one was launched. So you don't have 100% coverage unless you accelerate the pipeline. And you still have the seatliner issue; since there will typically be multiple shuttle launches over the life of that Soyuz, you'd have to get all the shuttle crewmembers fitted for them. Not all, just the ones you want to fly home. For each flight designate the two "lucky ones" and give them seat liners. They fly home with one of the Station crew (who presumably is better trained to fly Soyuz.). -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: They fly home with one of the Station crew (who presumably is better trained to fly Soyuz.). How much crew intervention/pilotage do modern Soyuzy require to get back to Earth? Ideally, you'd want a lifeboat to be able to get back automatically, or at least under ground control. (Maybe it could have a big red "DOWN" button in the cabin.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble | Jim Oberg | Misc | 81 | December 14th 04 04:10 AM |
MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble | Jim Oberg | Policy | 77 | December 14th 04 04:10 AM |
No safe haven at Hubble.... | Blurrt | Space Shuttle | 20 | May 10th 04 06:37 PM |
ISS Safe Haven | John Doe | Space Station | 0 | January 27th 04 10:47 AM |
ISS Safe Haven? | Explorer8939 | Space Station | 15 | January 6th 04 11:25 PM |